Canada Water Campaign Home
Agenda 10 December Return to Bulletin 30





19th November 2001



David Brunskill (DB) Lisa Hollamby (LH) Gary Glover (GG)

Pauline Adenwalla (PA) Noel Ashton (NA) Peter Brooks (PB)

Conrad Hollingsworth (CH) Simon Phippen (SP) Stephen Platts (SP)

Ian Owers (IO) Simon Hodge (SH) Chris Horn (CH)

Janet Hodge (JH) Adam Faulkner (AF) Claire Davis (CD)

Alastair Macalpine (AM) Pascale Rosenbloom (PR) Jackie Rose (JR)

Danny McCarthy (DM) Andrew Cook (AC) Donald Hanciles (DH)

APOLOGIES Cllr Lancashire, Rev Andrew Doyle

ACTION POINT – AF to circulate Downtown Brief when available

ACTION POINT – LBS to reduce Topic Papers to Bullet points for next meeting

ACTION POINT – LBS to co-ordinate the arrangement of the next meeting

ACTION POINT – PR provide copy of Civic Trust report to Forum when available

Meeting opened by chair 7:10pm

With no local Councillors available the Forum was in-quorate, the Chair asked the Forum if it would like to proceed with the meeting or reschedule.

Following a discussion it was decided that there was a benefit in continuing with the meeting especially to provide feedback on the Topic Papers, the Forum decided to continue with some sections of the agenda.

Minutes of last meeting

Could not be agreed.

Matters Arising


Admin Staff - Introduction

Chair introduced and welcomed Jackie Rose to the Forum, the role will commence on 3rd December 2001.

Topic Paper - Discussion

Comments from DM regarding the use of technical language, the papers, especially the Built Environment paper needs to be written in simple English so comments can be made.

Built Environment :-
Vision not incorporated
Carparking Provision Issues as people are very attached to their cars in the area
Too technical
Too lengthy

Community Facilities and Leisure

The paper is in its fourth draft, and will be revised again to include comments from LBS Leisure Dept.

Housing :-
Emphasis should be on high % of affordable, in the bigger unit sizes.
Issues of parking provisions should be covered.
Losing young people due to the cost of housing, maybe high density flats could cater for that problem.

Education :-
Discussion surrounding the Paterson Park, City Academy. If it gets caught up in the planning process is there a risk the Academy will be lost ? Could these sites be put forward as an alternative so the opportunity is not lost. CH explained that due to the Underground Station at Canada Water and new Academy in this location would not assist the Borough, as students from outside could attend. Need to watch how the application proceeds and direct the education paper accordingly.

Transport :-
Issues with congestion on Lower Road and the Rotherhithe Tunnel needs to be considered.
Congestion Charging Zone - impacts on parking in the area.
Consideration of Controlled Parking Zone options for the area.
Could be problem with the private squares and Closes in terms of patrolling.
Access points to the peninsula need to be looked at.
Cycle routes are established but need to have better lighting and safety.
Capacity of Jubilee line and extension of the East London line need to be considered.

Economic Development :-
BH suggested that he will be able to finalise the paper with the Officers he has dealt with in the past.

Social Inclusion :-
No additions or comments

General :-
Papers need to be shortened into bullet points, covering issues the Forum wish to have addressed by the developers making submissions in response to the brief. The papers need to be shortened and the language needs to be simplified, the general London Wide context can be removed from individual papers and set out in a separate document, so the emphasis in the Topic Papers remains focused on the Local issues.

Development Brief

Forum felt it did not have enough time to consider the contents of the circulated document and so they should be able to take it away and discuss it at the next meeting.

Issues surrounding delivery of a masterplan scheme were discussed and CH confirmed that LBS would consider the use of CPO to deliver on a scheme, as it has in the past. CH also confirmed that no threat of CPO has been made to any existing occupier or freeholder in relation to the core development area.

On issues of process, SP outlined that by early next year they will be marketing to invite expressions of interest for the Council’s land, which will initially be assessed by such things as a team’s track record, financial stability etc. From this a list of 10-12 teams will be short listed and the Brief will be released to them somewhere around April next year.

Vision for Canada Water

Not discussed.

Consultation Activities

Agreement that the use of a delivery agency was not a workable solution. After a number of options were outlined by PR, the Forum recommendation was to use the postal service. CH suggested that if LBS are to spend the money on postage, then this should really be a Community led newsletter and the Forum needs to be more involved in it’s drafting. GG suggested formation of an Editorial body from within the Forum. PR reminded the forum that the invitation to join an editorial board has been made several times, and that PA and CD had volunteered to assist. The Chair invited interest, GG volunteered. PR asked that anyone else who was interested should email her directly. Other comments regarding the other documents that are delivered to houses on the peninsula, maybe could tie into that delivery for better coverage.

Chair acknowledged that he had received a formal apology from SP regarding the wording in the newsletter.

The proof draft of the Civic Trust report should be available by Friday, so discussion can follow from that. PR outlined that all material from the events will be retained by the Council for reference, and will also be available for public reference. There will not be the opportunity for the forum to feed their suggested amendments to the Civic Trust. PR suggested that if people had comments they forward them to her, and she will attach them to the report as an appendix where appropriate.

Process and Timing

Discussed in Item 6.

Update on Planning Applications

Andy Cook and Donald Hanciles were present to go though the applications.

Site D Residential scheme - will go to Development Control Committee in December with recommendation for approval.

Site E Telehotel/Office scheme - will go to Development Control Committee in January with recommendation for approval.

Site E Full Office scheme - needs further discussion with regard to height but it is envisaged that agreement will be possible and so that will go to Development Control Committee in January with recommendation for approval.

Issues raised by the Forum in terms of compliance with UDP, especially with regard to height. Planning officers seem to apply the central government guidance when it benefits (i.e. Height) and seems to stick with the UDP when it suits (i.e. Affordable Housing).

Andy Cook suggested that the current applications are not outside the limits of the current UDP in planning terms.

Further comments with regard to waiting for the new masterplan is adopted, Andy Cook again addressed the issue pointing out that the planning department must consider applications in a reasonable time, as the agreement of a masterplan is quite a long way off at this stage, waiting is not an option.

Can consultation be done via email ?? It is possible however the plans that attach are not in an email-able form at this stage.


AF confirmed to the meeting that the brief for Downtown will be available shortly and that it will be circulated to the Forum and via the campaign website. Discussion can follow at the next Forum meeting if necessary.


Next meeting

Follow up meeting in 3 weeks time, LBS

Agenda 10 December Return to Bulletin 30